deleted by creator

You have a very good point. I would personally say that there is a physical difference between a computer and human, but that they are logically equivalent, within the scope of our discussion, even if the human processes are unconscious, because, objectively, the processes are occurring and have logical equivalence in that they are both memory address systems; just as a number and letter can have logical equivalence as symbols.

Also, I realize that I do not have the evidence that our brains do operate on a memory address system, and since it is my claim the burden of proof is on me. However, lack of evidence on my part is not evidence for an opposing idea, meaning the correct answer, for now, is “I don’t know.”

Have a wonderful day! 😁

we don’t have a memory address system so it’s not the same process as a computer.

Just because we don’t have to consciously think about where data is stored in our brains doesn’t mean that our brains don’t have a memory address system. How often do you have to consciously maintain your heart beat, calculate the orientation of your body, or identify that the two objects in front of you are similar enough to be a set of objects—two dogs. You don’t. They are unconscious/automatic functions.

Yes! 😁

One could even say that the pronouns “him” and “her” could indicate specific types of pointers, like int and char.

Let’s make an agreement that the English word “coffee” now means 65. The reference of any word within any language only exists because we make an agreement with ourselves or with others for what a particular set of symbols gives reference to. Without an agreement, all the symbols we use mean nothing more than an arbitrary scratch on a table.

A pointer is the word, which means nothing by itself other than a grouping of letters exist, and the reference to an address is the reference to an object, which exists independently from the object—a reference to a fictional object can exist and a real object can exist without a reference.

To be a bit more specific, a word is nothing more than a set of symbols (physical) which indicate an agreed value (abstract/reference). A pointer is the word and the agreed value is the reference of the object. The object the pointer points to is the existence of the real object (physical) and its value(s) which exists regardless of abstract references.

Pattern: physical -> reference -> physical -> value

Double pointer pattern: physical -> reference -> physical -> reference -> physical -> value

Etc…

A word’s meaning can change through time as cultures rise and fall, for the temporary purpose of encrypting conversations (e.g. the word “dog” can point to the agreed value of “fork” or “7”), or even misidentification.

That is a simple and good analogy, and, yes, perhaps better than my own.

Whether the pointed data by the pointer is valid or not is… not the point.

Nor is that the point of my analogy, but I do see how you inferred that point. Your criticism has helped me identify a flaw in how I express the analogy.

Yes and no, according to the analogy. Just as a word contains the idea of an object, but not the object itself.

I recommend Debian Linux.

https://www.debian.org/social_contract

Hmm… If only there were buttons to express explicit disagreement or agreement of the behavior of the OP, the idea expressed in the post, or both.

An interesting social media evolution path to think about, at the least.

it is one of the few things I can see people actually pointing at when saying TikTok is bad

Yes, and this article reinforces that idea, regardless of whether or not TikTok = bad is correct, which is my point.

If it had happened on Friendster; then it would have been because of the specific user(s) creating and posting such content, not because of the platform. To say platform = bad because a user or users post negatively affecting content is a sweeping generalization which does not reflect reality, meaning that the negative connotation of TikTok = bad is still incorrect. The users which created and posted such content, in this case, are to blame.

If students see such content on social media; then the first thought should not be: platform bad; it should be: who posted it, and for what reason(s).

You can replace TikTok with any social media platform. That’s why this argument is illogical in that it blames TikTok.

If this were an unbiased and honest article; then it would read “Kids are short-circuiting their school-issued Chromebooks for social clout.” The subtle message, in this article, is TikTok = bad, which is illogical because events such as this will occur regardless of platform or even lack of a platform. It will ALWAYS happen. The question is how to mitigate these events as much as possible, because it’s impossible to completely eradicate “kids doing X for social clout.” It’s a part of learning and being human.

If the imprisonment of innocent people becomes anything other than rare, or if innocent people are being exiled or killed, then that implies logical analysis is not being followed or even considered but, instead, replaced with an immature and short-sighted subjective reality, meaning all else has already failed.

I wouldn’t confuse tolerance and ability to reason with weakness. Picking up an AR15 is just a last resort when, literally, all else fails, not a first resort.